You are on page 1of 3

University

of the Philippines College of Law


DMG 1-D

Topic Other exculpatory causes- Instigation
Case No. GR 211465/ December 3, 2014
Case Name PEOPLE vs CASIO
Ponente Leonen, J.

DOCTRINE
Difference between entrapment and instigation is where the intent to commit the crime originates. In
entrapment, the idea and resolve to commit the crime originate from the accused himself. The authorities
merely provide mechanisms to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in actual commission of the crime.
On the other hand, in instigation, the authority conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the
accused who adopts and carries it into action. Entrapment is lawful, instigation is not.

SUMMARY
Petitioner was caught trafficking minors via offering their services to the undercover policemen in an
entrapment operation. She alleged that she was instigated in committing the crime because no prior
surveillance was conducted by the authorities.

RELEVANT FACTS

International Justice Mission (IJM),a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in order
to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City
PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to
entertain their guests. IJM provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter.
PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red
light district. Accused noticed them and called their attention by saying "Chicks mo dong?" (Do you like
girls, guys?). After having an agreement, accused returned with 2 minor girls.
PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo convinced accused to come with them to Queensland Motel. Upon
proceeding to Room 24, PO1 Veloso handed the marked money to accused.
As accused counted the money, PO1 Veloso gave PSI Ylanan a missed call. This was their pre-arranged
signal. The rest of the team proceeded to Room 24, arrested accused, and informed her of her
constitutional rights.
Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated into committing the
crime. The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject
was.Neither did the police know the identities of the alleged victims
Accused further argues that under the subjective test, she should be acquitted because the prosecution
did not present evidence that would prove she had a history of engaging in human trafficking or any
other offense. She denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundry woman

ISSUE

W/N the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering that there was no prior
surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation
W/N the prosecution was able to prove accuseds guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though there was
no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking


University of the Philippines College of Law
DMG 1-D

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the entrapment YES
operation conducted by the
police was valid, considering 1. Prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operations
that there was no prior validity
surveillance and the police 2. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out
did not know the subject of its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused
the operation have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the
wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the
essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.

W/N the prosecution was YES
able to prove accuseds guilt 1. Two tests in determining the validity of entrapment operations:
beyond reasonable doubt a. Objective test
even though there was no - considers the nature of the police activity involved and the
evidence presented to show propriety of police conduct.
that accused has a history of - focus of the inquiry: inducements used by government
engaging in human trafficking agents, on police conduct
- test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law
enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-
abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to
commit the offense
b. Subjective test/ origin of intent test
- focus of the inquiry: accused's predisposition to commit the
offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his
initial exposure to government agents
- emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense
rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt
to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and
the trap for the unwary criminal."
- If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to
commit the offense at any favorable opportunity, the
entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an
unduly persuasive inducement.
2. Entrapment vs Instigation
a. Entrapment
- law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the
apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission
of the crime
- the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The
idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him
b. Instigation
- the accused is induced to commit the crime
- the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it
into execution.
University of the Philippines College of Law
DMG 1-D

3. Under the subjective test, accused was predisposed to commit the
offense because she initiated the transaction
- It was the accused-appellant who commenced the
transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by calling their
attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and
when the officers responded, it was the accused- appellant
who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for
their perusal.
4. Under the objective test, the entrapment would still be valid. The
police merely proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay
Kamagayan. It was accused who asked them whether they wanted
girls. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for the
accused to commit the crime.


RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2013, finding
accused Shirley A. Casio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a) of
Republic Act No. 9208, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 2,000,000.00,
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103
(Indeterminate Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.92

The award of damages is likewise MODIFIED as follows: Accused is ordered to pay each of the private
complainants:
(1) 500,000.00 as moral damages; and
(2) 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. SO ORDERED.



NOTES
Elements of human trafficking under RA 10354:
a. act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining,
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders;
b. means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person,
or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person"
c. purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs"